1) Virginity should not be valued. Morally it forces people to fight against their needs, to suffer, in addition to lowering them.
2) Marriage leads to domestic violence.
3) For me the past only makes a difference when I think about it. If you do not think there are no problems.
4) There are sexual partners with more than two members. Both because they are bisexual and traditionally (a man can have several women).
5) Sex should be easier for people who need it. However, if it is my daughter I prefer that she only do it with boyfriends.
6) If the old loses intensity does the feelings get worn out?
7) For me the life story of a girl may have value, but it is not the most important. I'd say only 70% of the amount.

Virginity is something that either is or isn't for a person, viginity is not against needs, I think you mean celibacy here where one abstains from sex in an effort to overcome desire, rather than needs. Sex is not a need, nor is it a desire, we can have a desire for sex, but sex is not in itself a need or desire.

Marriage leads to domestic violence? In all cases? Reality seems to be at odds with this statement.

I would argue the future is what informs the present.

Having more than one sexual partner is not bisexuality - bisexuality is when one has sexual partners of both sexes/genders, so a man will sleep with both men and women. Monogamy and polygamy are the contrast between having one or more sexual partners. While it is true that some traditions do advocate polygamy, there are also traditions that don't. There is no fixed and eternal rule or law, it depends on cultural practices and conventions - it is a human construct.

What do you mean by sex should be easier for people who need it? Sex isn't a need, sex is something we desire to have. Do you mean you should be able to have sex based on a sense of entitlement?

I don't understand 6.

I also don't know what you mean by 7. Can you elaborate?

I know this thread is in the lounge, so title to content ratios are not paramount, but I have not seen any inquiry into sexuality in this OP, all I have seen so far are perspectives on having sex, although there are some tones of patriarchial traditional conservation which add to the object we will call man.

I would rather call sex as a need for a human to develop properly. Without marriage and family a statistical likehood for a person to be happy drops down significantly, especially with age. Though, polygamy and monogamy should be social contract between couples. As with civilizations, same as with individuals. It is an agreement which is very real and should be respected. In truth, I would even court martial women who leaves/cheat their boyfriends on the tour of duty for high treason, going so far as to whip them in public, give prison sentence and similar punishments. Social contracts are not imaginary and causes very real pain which devastated person for a long time, often said scars never truly heal and innocence and trust is lost forever.

I had meant that strictly in regards to men under tour of duty. Ones conscripted or serving their time in military branches. This is because often when girl leaves a man in such position, he is often heartbroken to the point of suicidal behavior. He stops caring and wishes for death. Furthermore, it is strike in the back, person who often has to risk his life constantly is EXTREMELY dependent on emotional support from home. This is why armies across the world had put premium on transfer of letters from home and considered dropping letters on soldiers just as important as dropping bombs on enemies.

From my own perspective, such breach of social agreement is equal to high treason. While it might not have any significance for nation and its goal, it has immense effect on a person. Furthermore, I consider such action extremely immoral. Specifically, abandoning your loved ones as they risk their life for you and their nation well being.

I'm not about monitoring said relationship or enforcing moral laws upon people, but there must be limits, especially when stakes are so high. Moral of the army is of crucial importance and soldier first must feel that he is fighting for something. Dead men are good as cannon fodder, but cannon fodder does not win wars. In my mind, healthy society should structure itself in this regard. Workers/Soldiers/Leaders. Worker being in the bottom of social standing, industry being designed towards support of industrial military complex. Leaders are a natural progression of people who had showed motivation, talent and self-sacrifice in their own way in order to compete for leading posts which would include from local governor to president and anything in between. There would be a clear distinction between the civilian who I view as an outsider in nation and as a citizen who is a part of a nation and its life. One who has right to vote and be involved in its political life.

Thus, it is rather in my mind is special right which is given to citizens that government would enforce said punishment if requested. It is not about breach of social agreements which concerns me, but about devastating results it has when done in the context of high stress environment as tour of duty. As for gender, it goes both ways, but I girls in military are rare. Especially when I would come down. That humans do not understand is that army is not a brothel. You find perfectly acceptable that women serving with men end up pregnant. For me, harsh reprimands would follow. Woman would be interogated and culprits would be found and then, there are only two solutions. Dishonorable discharge from service or disciplinary punishment followed by demotion if available. No officer would sink to such lows and we must ensure that unworthy men and women do not stain proud reputation of officers core.

I'm coming to realise you and I have basically opposite worldviews not to let the thread go too far off topic (whatever the topic was supposed to be), while I agree that cheating is wrong, I also think that the military is wrong and wish it could be abolished across the board and everyone start pumping that money into environmental repair and maintenance, and space exploration

Your view is simply outdated. Similar perspective was advocated after WW1 in interwar years and after cold war only for new threats to emerge and challenge us. Fighting against arabs is a nice exercise. They are inferior to us as human beings, thus it is great place to send them to war there as part of their coming to manhood. For threats such as China, it will remain always high tech showdown, more focused on technical side of war, using more modern and capable equipment in decimating strategic targets and making other side to sue for peace. Not that it beats the charm and power of having armies march through their land nor allows to later demand equally large confessions, but it does enable us to isolate and to drive our enemies into a corner.

A nation which does not wish to pay for maintenance of their own army will soon pay for maintenance of invader's army.

Or in other words, I will put it as simple as possible for you my friend. Do you want king of England coming to your house and bossing you around? Because if you do not buy a gun, this is that eventually is going to happen! If we won't have the biggest gun around, damn Chinese will come to shag our women and take our jobs!

I have no illusions that my dream is realistic, but I don't let that mean that I have to support or like the situation. I keep projecting towards peaceful coexistence of all the people, however I also have trained in several forms of hand to hand combat as well as archery training and, when my boyfriend gets his rifle, firearms training. I'm fairly sure the world is going to go to hell in my lifetime and am making all preparations for it, but in defence of myself rather than supporting one side or the other when all I can see is that both are wrong in equitable measure, to a ridiculous degree.

Well, it is first step towards having certain degree of control over your life. Though, sides might rarely have moral high ground, only fools are looking for moral high ground. That matters is that in every conflict there are two groups of interest. Each interest directly demean other group's interest. Thus, it is not possible to live happily ever after without ever picking side to support. You must pick side which to support or otherwise you will become a collateral damage. You might loose regardless, but you will not loose as a victim anymore.

Our duty is to ensure that we emerge on top of any conflict that is being waged. Only in this way we can ensure that said interests are protected and our dominance is ensured. Belief that you do not have stake in said conflict is simply foolish, naive and delusional. You have, we all have stakes in Nato operations across the world. If for example, middle East is not destabilized and controlled by us, their resources will not be rechanelled back to us and in the future, there might be another oil crisis. If China is not contained within its own territory, it will forcefully claim territory around its shores, claiming local resources. If we forsake all forms of warfare, it is only a matter of time when inferior dragon arises and begins to dictate how we should live. Arabs are a great example and their militant, terrorist organizations. We do not need to do anything, but exist and they are entirely convinced that they have right to dominate us. It is in their religion. By abandoning military, it is only a matter of time when someone like them will come to dictate what we can or cannot do.

I can only dream to have a better dog fighting for me than incompetent western military. But what I can do, I have to do with whatever I have to and simply be happy that USA is pulling weight of Europe. Said USA puppets are damn useless at everything they do. It is simply delusional state of mind to think that USA had became great by selling coca cola. It is most aggressive and selfish Empire in existence and if not for scourge of globalization, it would still have unmatched wealth and power. Though, said globalization is essential in distributing wealth around to our lessers. One simply does not become great by giving away hugs, love and food.

In conclusion, the great game will always be played. You cannot refuse to play it. Refusal will mean submission by the forces who do not agree to play by your rules. Just look at Falklands war, you are either a bitch or you are making others your bitches, it is that simple. Furthermore, as there will be limited resources, there will always be ones thinking that they deserve better half of their share of said resources. Even going as war as to fight for them. Make no mistake, war is primal and essential state of man. Either war is economical as today is being waged by USA-China or it is spectacular nuclear showdown with troops rushing in post nuclear environment, waging across the ruins and desperate survivors in order to capture ground and to cripple enemy until it can no longer recover. Either of said extremes are manifestations of Krieg. It is just how much you are willing to sacrifice for your objectives.

World always had fail safe devises to prevent war. Before it was extremely complex web of alliances like WW1 or it is globalization like it is now. We are no more foolish and delusional as before. World was globalized and before, nations solely relying on others for certain resources or workforce. One falling could had caused collapse of entire system in pre-industrial age as it is now. Even if trade now is a lot more active, it won't change a damn thing when strategic objectives are threatened. Look at Russia invading Ukraine. Its interest were threatened.
Thus strategic access to Black Sea was taken by force and its population living within Ukraine were forcefully given independence. Ukraine was just as foolish as you. Georgia was just as foolish as you. Both of said nations now lie low and in ruins. It will take generation for them to recover to their previous highs.

Though, peasants were never meant to understand concerns of nobility. Your role in life is to live blissfully ignorant of sacrifices needed to be made every day in order to secure your own well being and prosperity. Be happy and look for yourself. It is not for you to understand why military and power projection in general always took the upper levels of any society. There isn't a powerful nation on this Earth who would had renounced power projection. All of them spends immense resources in ensuring their own dominance and they will do that forever since their concerns are higher than people such as you or me.

1) Virginity should not be valued. Morally it forces people to fight against their needs, to suffer, in addition to lowering them.
2) Marriage leads to domestic violence.
3) For me the past only makes a difference when I think about it. If you do not think there are no problems.
4) There are sexual partners with more than two members. Both because they are bisexual and traditionally (a man can have several women).
5) Sex should be easier for people who need it. However, if it is my daughter I prefer that she only do it with boyfriends.
6) If the old loses intensity does the feelings get worn out?
7) For me the life story of a girl may have value, but it is not the most important. I'd say only 70% of the amount.

Most of this is nonsense.

Virginity does not have its own value. You can make it a valuable thing, but the main reason some cultures focus on virginity is because they treat women like property and want the untouched property. Virginity has zero value. People dont need to rush to give theirs away, but you arent less valuable because you had sex. In fact - if you are a virgin, then I have no interest romantically at all.

Marriage doesnt lead to domestic violence. Many people who are married never have violence, and many people who arent married have plenty of domestic violence in their relationships. Dont be ridiculous.

#3 dont know what you even mean

Some people have multiple sexual partners.... So what?

Sex should be easier for people who need it? Who NEEDS it? Never knew it was a necessity.... Are you saying people should be obligated to service those who need it even if they arent into it? Sounds weird and crazy.

For older people the feelings dont lose out and there is no loss of intensity.... Old people get freaky as hell.

Life story of a girl? What does life story have to do with sex, and why only for girls?

This is one of the weirdest things I have ever read.

-----------------------------------------

The idea of charging a woman for treason because she dumped a man in the military or cheated on him is ridiculous as well. Has nothing to do with treason and if she isnt into him anymore - forcing her to stay with him because he kills people for the government is ridiculous. And if he chose to date a ho, then that is his fault anyways.